Back to Quack Off

 Quack Off               

by Free Market Duck

Idaho Statesman Claims “nullification” of Obamacare is “immoral”

Feb 14, 2011

Boise, ID – Whoa, pull up the barn floor, pour yourselves another hot cup of Rocket Java, and listen up, girl friends.  The Idaho Statesman, once again, bares the teeth of its Progressive state collectivist ideology for all to see in this Sunday’s Our View Editorial entitled, “Idaho’s arrogant, foolish gamble.”

   In the Statesman article, the editors argue that the Idaho legislature is foolish to attempt to pass a bill – a “nullification” bill -- that would abolish Obama’s national health care system because 223,000 of Idaho’s “most vulnerable constituents” have a right to it based upon need.  In addition, if “nullification” succeeds, claim the editors, Idaho risks losing out on another state collectivist program: namely, receiving $1.6 billion in federal Medicaid money.

   What is the philosophical basis for the Statesman’s argument?  Collectivism.  More specifically:  altruistic state collectivism based upon relative need.  Or, put another way, the right to receive – i.e., take by force, government force in this case – the private property of one individual and redistribute it to another person based on the philosophy of the biggest gang rules, and the individual does not have an inherent right to his or her own mind or property if the biggest gang says no.

   That is the shoddy basis upon which all redistributive welfare states justify what amounts to (1) a repudiation of the concept of inalienable individual rights and (2) the implementation of a tyranny by the majority.

   The Statesman editors call “nullification” of Obamacare “beyond reckless.   It is immoral,” they claim.

   The big question of course is:  Immoral from what point of view?  Why, from a state collectivist point of view, of course.  Not from an individual rights, private property rights, free minds and free markets, voluntary exchange, free market capitalist point of view.

   And this is exactly what Ayn Rand and FM Duck have been telling the reader regarding the importance of which philosophy you choose.  Your philosophical view, whether you can state it or not, whether you are even conscious of it or not, forms the basis for all of your social, political, and economic actions.

   It is not difficult to track the Statesman editors’ philosophy of collectivism, their fallacious arguments, and easily predict their state collectivist conclusions.  Since the editors start with their own “nullification,” or fundamental repudiation of individual rights to voluntary exchange, they must always end up with imploring the government to mis-use its collective coercive power of force to redistribute everybody’s private property to those who they, in their opinion, classify as having rights to receive based upon “need.”  Of course, different gangs will argue for their favorite “needy” constituents.  Welcome to Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

   Whether the action of the Idaho state legislature’s use of the “nullification” method to stop Obamacare will work or not, or cause the demise of other government programs, is rather beside the point.  It may work, and it may not work.  That will be up to the courts.  The main point is:  which philosophy should man live by in this world:  Individualism or Collectivism?  Inherent individual rights or Mob rule.

   Remember the definitions of Individualism vs. Collectivism:

Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

   It is important for the reader to read the three-part series by Ayn Rand, annotated by FM Duck, entitled, What is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

   The editorial in the Idaho Statesman is a perfect example of the mob rule mentality of all stripes of collectivists as they try to assert the morality of mis-using the collective coercive power of the state to redistribute every individual’s private property to other individuals based upon the recipient’s real or imagined “needs.”

   These two principles – Individualism vs. Collectivism -- are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is the philosophical war between these two basic principles, and the real irony is that it’s not “nullification” of Obamacare that is “immoral;” rather, it is the implementation of collectivist programs such as Medicaid and Obamacare that is immoral. – FM Duck

back to top...